Tender out to repair KD Pari

PETALING JAYA: Last month, a tender to repair KD Pari was issued. KD Pari was the FAC which nearly sank off Pulau Layang-layang last November while attempting to chase a Chinese vessel. The FAC took in water after one of its shafts dislodged.

Those who wanted to tender for the project was supposed to conduct an inspection of the ship at the RMN base in Kota Kinabalu on March 26. I have no idea whether the project will be given the green light or whether the ship will be scrapped if they decide the cost to repair it will be too costly.

The final day for submissions will be on April 19, the final day of DSA 2012. As RMN is running short of ships, one wonder what will be the decision be?

To me they should not even towed the ship back to Kota Kinabalu in the first place, let alone issue a tender to repair it. But thats my take on the issue, they must know more than I claim to know!

— Malaysian Defence

If you like this post, buy me an espresso. Paypal Payment

Share
About Marhalim Abas 1630 Articles
Shah Alam

17 Comments

  1. Scrap it!

    ———

    While reading an article this morning, I was reminded of the case that I made for investment in UUVs some time ago. Considering the amount of sea to be covered, it makes a lot of sense to invest in unmanned underwater (and surface) vessels with long range and endurance.

    Here’s the article:

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/apr/4/scientists-build-robot-jellyfish-fueled-sea-water/

    Reply
    Yes UUVs and USVs would be great for mine hunting and even patrol work. But since we are insisting UAVs be locally sourced what make u think it will be different when comes to UUVs and USVs?

  2. It will better to build more Kedah class to replace those machine. ofcz main issue $… hope SGPV project will not spoil our trust on local defence company.

  3. The engine and gear box was submerged in sea water but can be overhauled and that goes for the 57mm and 40mm gun – and will cost a bomb!. The whole electrical system and the controls in the engine room and the enclosed and open bridge will have also have to be replaced, as well as the comms.

    Wonder if the RMN has given any thought to operating rotary UAVs from the decks of the LCSs. Then again, Marhalim answered the question…. I still can’t figure out why the LCS is called the LCS when it won’t be optimised for littoral work and will not be able to carry different modules for different work. I also find it ironic that the Kedah class has a NDS-3060 Obstacle Avoidance sonar that can detect mines, but the LCS won’t.

    reply
    Because its a frigate. But since frigate is a dirty word to the bean counters, LCS or SGPV is the better designation

  4. Malaysia has plenty of shipyards that are capable enough to carry out actual build for FAC’S. If we are really serious in giving our local boys a chance to get better in the defence industry, then we should give our local yards a chance to build say another six to 12 FAC class surface vessels. They are cheap, fast off the production line, gives a real boost to the local yards, employment, GDP contribution and money into the hands of our local people.

    Reply
    Yes just buy a design from a reputable yard and be done with it.

  5. With the kind of possible damage from sea water (unseen rust/corrosion) and also “make good” contract clause, I doubt any contractor would charge less than the price of a new boat. “Make good” clause is feared by contractors since it implies an almost unlimited scope of work.

  6. I’m absolute convinced that we still have a requirement for a class of FACs the size of the Jerong or Handalan to perform routine day to day patrolling. They don’t need to be armed with anything heavier than a 76mm gun and a secondary 40mm or 30mm gun and. Seems a bit pointless and expensive to have a vessel the size of the Kedah or LCS on station in the Sulu Sea or Melaka Straits to protect our fishing fleet against marauding Indonesian fisheries boats or Philippine bandits. Sure the MMEA is meant to do this but we all know it’s not going to happen anytime soon.

    Reply
    I am also convinced that we need patrol boats but I believed the job should be done by MMEA.

  7. Marhalim,

    Oh, I don’t expect anything to be different; If they ever decide to go for UUVs or USVs, they’ll botch the whole program. As always, there is a distinct line between what we should do and what will actually happen.

    Lastly, I couldn’t agree more with your comment: “Yes just buy a design from a reputable yard be done with it.”

  8. Yes the FAC class is still required by the RMN. Just look at the Malacca Straits and close in sea like the Sulu sea. Not every situation requires a blue navy ship for best effects. The Spratly’s require some blue navy stuff but places like the Sulu Sea, Malacca straits a small manueverable boat is the super ship required

  9. Not so much a maneuverable boat but something that is cheaper to run and requires less manning levels than a frigate. By right, cash should be allocated for the MMEA to get FAC size boats. The whole idea of forming the MMEA was so the RMN could concentrate on other things.

  10. it is more easier to get funding on maintenance and repair, as compared to buy new asset. the paper work is lesser and easier.

    Reply
    But it could also mean that there are no plans to fund FACs or patrol boats in the current navy procurement plans

  11. U.S. Debates Allocation Amount For Israel’s Iron Dome – Aviation Week

    Despite deep divisions in the U.S. Congress, lawmakers are not missing an opportunity to express their support for the defense of Israel. The question is just how much they will provide in the end.

    The Pentagon recently said it would ask for more cash to purchase Rafael’s Iron Dome short-range rocket and mortar defense system for Israel. And while some lawmakers are so enthusiastic about Iron Dome that they have already introduced a bill toward that end, there is no consensus about the amount of the allocation.

    The “new wrinkle” according to Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.), a member of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee, is that Israel may want the U.S. to pay for a greater share of the system than in the past. “I understand that [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu wants us to pay for all of it, without a match from Israel,” Moran says. “I don’t know whether there may be some objection” to altering past arrangements.

    In fiscal 2011, the U.S. provided $204 million for Iron Dome — enough to equip four batteries, according to a House aide. This year’s request, the aide says, is expected to be larger for an ancillary system that intercepts threats from 2.5‑45 mi. away.

    For fiscal 2013, President Barack Obama has asked for $3.1 billion in foreign military financing for Israel. The request includes $99.8 million for co-development of missile defense through the Missile Defense Agency, about $6 million less than in fiscal 2012.

    … the article continues …

    Reply
    And the relevance to KD Pari?

  12. Re: relevance

    Not relevant at all! Just adding to a point I made much earlier, regarding US funding of “Israeli technology”…

    Considering the sometimes random nature of comments, what is your protocol?

    Reply
    It was so off-base, I had to ask….

  13. once and for all solution is armed the kedah class to the teeth, and send 3 of that ships to the disputed water….:-)

    Reply
    Even if we decide to arm the Kedah class tomorrow, it will take at least one year to get them to the Spratlys (with testing and commissioning)…

  14. I agree with cheekucai…rather we get KD Pari into the dock, better we scrap it, lay a new ship of that class (IMO our local shipyars are up to mark to design and built one) then give it to TLDM and MARITIM

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*